Discussion All Areas Of Systematic Theology
Just like in Matt. 25:46, some went into “eternal” life in heaven and others were in “eternal” punishment. In other words, at the Parousia, some Israelites were saved and went into heaven while the rest were killed/destruction/died for good (Rom. 9:22; 2 Thes. 1:9; 2 Peter 2:7).
Hi Don, as we know, ALL of Christ's parables were founded on "truth" (Jn 8:28, 38, 12:49, etc). Christ was not of the sort of Man who would seek to scare people into believing in Him by lying to them. In fact the opposite was true (Jn 6:56, 60, 66).
In the 1st century Roman Empire the Greek concept of "Hades" was well understood as the realm of 'disembodied existence' (see, here). In Lk 16 Christ used this common understanding to illustrate a teaching about the "deceitfulness of riches". Tell me:
1. Why do you believe Christ did this when He could have used any number of things to illustrate His point?
2. Why do you believe Christ taught His audience that the "rich man was in torments in Hades" (Lk 16:23; also, Matt 11:23, 16:18, Lk 10:15)? What do you believe His audience (NOT Rivers!) understood by this?
3. Why do you believe the apostles also referred to "Hades" (Ac 2:31, 1 Cor 15:55), and tartaroo (2 Pet 2:4), which answered to the Jewish geenna (Mk 9:43)? What do you believe their audiences understood by this?
4. In what way is living a life without "fear of God" (Ps 36:1, 1 Cor 15:32) and then being annihilated on death "eternal punishment/destruction"? In what way do you experience "punishment" when you don't exist?
5. Why do you believe Christ said of Judas that it would have been better if he'd "not been born" if only annihilation awaited him for his "betrayal" (Matt 26:24)?
6. What do you understand about Christ's teachings in places like Matt 5:29-30? If the mental picture of geenna only meant annihilation why did they need to worry about this? Wasn't Christ wasting His breath with such warnings? (Consider the arrogant attitude of some now concerning what happens on death. Do you think those people were any different? Annihilation would be a "blessing", NOT a "punishment".)
7. What do you make of Rev 14:11?
8. What does this verse mean Ac 24:15? Were the "unjust" mentioned here "raised up" from their "graves", told they'd been naughty boys, and then immediately annihilated? Is that what it meant to have the "secrets of their hearts" judged (Rom 2:16, Heb 6:2)?
9. Where were the "spirits" of the Israelites kept before they were "raised up"? "Just" AND "unjust"?
10. Please point me to scripture that says the Israelites were anatomically/constitutionally different to other men (i.e. if they has a "spirit" that survived their biological demise, then so did others).
11. What do you believe it meant for the "beast" to be "cast alive into the Lake of Fire burning with brimstone.." (Rev 19:20)?
[ Along with Rivers, every paedophile and thief is cheering you on now you've become a preacher who in effect proclaims that "God is dead" for the creatures who bear His "image". God may give man "life, breath and all things" (Ac 17:25) but He's no longer concerned about the "life" He gives them or with their "righteousness" or lack thereof. The only thing lawbreakers have to concern themselves with now is not being caught by the cops. WOW. What an amazing "gospel"...... ]
Don, please try and be a big boy and answer these questions yourself.
Matthew 25:46. Yes. The meaning of "eternal" (AIWN) here is not duration, but permenance. Those who were to be resurrected to "life" would no longer be subject to physical death and perishing in the grave (Genesis 3:19) while those who were judged as evil doers would be destroyed and have no hope of "life" after going into the grave.
This is what Paul meant in Ephesians 2:2 when he said that "you were formerly dead in your sins." Being "dead in sins" referred to the fact that Adam's toil and eventual physical death was inevitable (Genesis 3:19) and had been passed on to all of the Israelites (Romans 5:12-14). Only through Christ could they avoid destruction after they died and were buried (1 Corinthians 15:54-57).
According to scriptural usage, the Israelites did not use the word "hades" to speak of "disembodied existence" at all. Instead of going to Wikipedia, why don't you research the Bible usage.
For example, in Acts 2:31, we can see that "soul" and "flesh" and "hades" are used interchangeably to speak of a dead body in a grave.
"He (David) looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul (Grk. PSUCHE) was neither left in the grave (Grk. HADES), nor did his flesh (Grk. SARX) suffer decay." (Acts 2:31).
In the Hebrew parallelism of the Psalms that Peter is quoting, you can also see that "soul left in grave (Hades) = flesh suffering decay". Thus, we know that the apostles understood that the "soul" and "flesh" both referred to a person's body that was laid in a tomb at the time of physical death and began the proces of "returning to dust" (Genesis 3:19).
Decomposition takes place in the ground (Hades) where a person (soul/flesh) is buried. It doesn't take place in a "disembodied existence" (which is not even a biblical term or concept). Luke 16 is a parable that uses figurative language for illustration. The parable is not an explanation of Greek philosophy about the afterlife.
Rivers, I have both looked at the biblical record and at extra-biblical records.
If you want to believe that Jesus and His apostles had a different understanding of "Hades" and tartaroo than EVERYONE else living in their day, you are free to do so. To admit anything different would be to undermine your 'Israel Only' error, so I understand where you're coming from.
But I'm interested to see how Don responds.
I would rather to watch you and Rivers debate on different subjects. You guys have some good points and I can learn from both of you.
Hi Don, that's ok, but without engaging in the arguments I've presented both here and in the other thread, how can I know what your thoughts are on these things? Do you agree with me? Disagree? Do you have anything to add? Subtract? You've make some statements and I've challenged them but you haven't responded. It's hard to know what your own views are now? Have they changed? Stayed the same? etc, etc.
Anyway, no worries.......
Take care, Taffy.
The Greek term TARTAROO is only used once in scripture (1 Peter 3:19) so it we don't have a lot of "usage" to work with.
However, making the assumption that the biblical writers used the word like "everyone else living in their day" is the foundation for bad exegsis. Since there is no explicit connection between secular sources and the canonical books, there is no basis for using them to interpret each other.
Even Josephus doesn't explicitly mention Jesus or any of the apostles (and he is considered the most reliable contemporary secular source to the NT). None of the OT people or historical events can be cooberated by any contemporary secular sources. For all intents and purposes, the biblical community was isolated both linguistically and culturally from the rest of the known world.
You might consider that the term "spirits" in 1 Peter 3:19 is not a term never used in scripture for a group of human beings (unless once can prove that "angels" always referred to human beings). It seems that Jude 6-8 is describing the same circumstances. Perhaps TARTAROO ("prison") in 1 Peter 3:19 is the same thing as "permenant bonds" in Jude 6. Maybe the unique term TARTAROO was used of "angelic" imprisonment in contrast with human imprisonment.
I understand what you're trying to say about "hades" and "sheol", but here's the problem.
The "meaning" of the words is always determined by how a particular writer or speaker uses them in a particular context. It doesn't matter if a word is borrowed from another language or transliterated, etc. The "meaning" does not come from the origin of the word.
For example, where you live in the UK, a "flat" is an apartment where someone makes their home. Where I live in the USA, a "flat" is a deflated tire. Americans would never call an apartment a "flat" (even though we got the English language from your country and are influenced by your culture).
If I tell someone about my "flat" it's only going to make sense if they understand how I am using the word. If they go on Wikipedia and look up the etimology of the word and come up with a hundred examples of how people in the UK are using the word "flat" then they are not going to get the right interpretation of what I said.
As I showed you from Acts 2:31, the words "soul" and "flesh" were used interchangeably for a dead person's body and "hades" is said to be the place where "decomposition" occurs. This can only be referring to the grave/tomb where Jesus was buried. It has nothing to do with "disembodied spirits". It doesn't matter how the secular Greek philosphers used the term.
Furthermore, in Acts 2:29, Peter used David's "death" and "buriel" and "tomb" as a comparison to what he says about Jesus' "soul" and "flesh" and "hades" in the same context. Thus, there can be no doubt that the apostles were talking about grave plots where dead bodies were found. In fact, Peter says that "David's tomb is with us to this day" (Acts 2:29) which certainly can't be referring to a realm of "disembodied spirits" in the context of the way he's reading it from SHeOL in the OT prophecies.
Rivers, as you've deleted and re-posted, I'll do the same.
I repeat, if "the biblical community was isolated both linguistically and culturally from the rest of the known world," the Hebrew translators of the OT wouldn't have used Greek words and concepts such as "Hades" to translate Hebrew words such as shĕ'owl (Ps 16:10, Ac 2:31). Nor would Jesus have used such words.
Nor would the apostles have used such words as "Hades" if they just wanted to translate the Hebrew word for "grave" into the Greek word for "grave". They could have just used mnēmeion. "Hades" and tartaroō conveyed certain meanings in the 1st century, i.e. 'disembodied existence'. And as THAT's the idea they wanted to convey, "Hades"/tartaroō were most suitable.
Like I said before, if that doesn't fit in with your 'Israel Only' error and you'd prefer to believe your 'unique' interpretation, that's ok by me.
Anyway, I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions I've asked you 4 times in the other thread?
If anyone else is interested in more on the biblical teaching on the "soul", they can check out my 'blog' on it (see, "Soul").
[ BTW, I like using Wikipedia for links because its been around for a long time. Its pointless providing links to sites that may not be around next week. The reader is then free to do further research. ]
Can you show me where in the OT referring to a "disembodied spiritual realm"? Thanks.
Don, when you start answering the questions I've asked you, I'll return the courtesy. Thanks.
(If you want me to paste them all in again just let me know.)